The appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

Of the three, the sentence of 11, 12 of the 3th sentence is "the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for 4 months".

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act or in the incomplete deliberation on the sentencing grounds is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed. Of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of two years of probation was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and the above judgment was finalized on May 13, 2016. The above judgment was sentenced to one year of probation in prison for 4 months, and it is obvious that it was a clerical error in the above judgment, which became final and conclusive on June 15, 2016. Thus, it is decided to correct it in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.